Dancing in the StreetsThe First Suicide
Bomber

One
moment before the Sons of Light wage war on the Sons of Darkness,
when the former are purported to be "the Judeo-Christian Culture,"
whereas the latter, "the Arab-Moslem Culture," is identified
with suicide bombers as its inherent, constitutive trait, let us
commemorate the first suicide bomber, who prayed to God to die killing
thousands.

"Now
the house was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines
were there; and there were upon the roof about three thousand men
and women, that beheld while Samson made sport. And Samson called
unto the LORD, and said, O Lord God, remember me, I pray thee, and
strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be
at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes. And Samson took
hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood, and on
which it was borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of the
other with his left. And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines.
And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon
the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead
which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in
his life." (Judges 16:27-30, King James version)

Neither
Moslem nor Arab, the first suicide bomber was Samson, adored as
hero in both Christian and Jewish tradition through the ages.

Don't Rejoice When Your Enemy Falls

Just
a few hours after the attacks in New York and Washington, pictures
of celebrating Palestinians filled Western media. It took days before
we heard of the rejoicing in Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on,
usually with no pictures. We can assume that there were people rejoicing
throughout the Third World, but only Palestinians were pictured.
Why?

There
is a practical reason: no country on earth is so filled up with
agents of the Western media as Israel. One of the numerous Western
cameras will always find some bunch of poor idiots rejoicing when
those who they see as their enemy  the US, with its automatic support
for Israel  falls. If rejoicing when your enemy falls were not
a natural human reaction, the bible would not have bothered to deplore
it (Proverbs 24:17).

In
fact, screening pictures of dancing Palestinians follows the same
logic. Many Israelis and supporters of Israel were rejoicing watching
the Palestinians falling once again on the most important front
of post-modern warfare: television.

Israel Reaps the Harvest

While
some Palestinians were vainly rejoicing, Israel immediately started
to reap the real harvest. The very first night, Israel killed 9
Palestinians while invading the town of Jenin, formally under full
Palestinians control. Later on, F-16 bombers were again used. With
world's attention fixed on the US, Israel's hands are free to kill
and destroy. "The attack in the U.S. presumably extends Israel's
ability to conduct military operations," Haaretz correspondent
Uzi
Benziman noted.

The
propaganda front was not abandoned either. Benziman reports that:

"The
terrorist attack on the U.S. provided the government in Jerusalem
with valuable leverage, with which it intends to try to impart to
the Western world the argument that Israel is fighting terror, rather
than against the Palestinian people's war of liberation. The ground
rules for the image battle, which Israel has been conducting for
a year, have been to its disadvantage until now. Israel was seen
in the community of democratic nations as an occupying regime that
was fighting with tanks against the Palestinian freedom fighters,
who were armed only with stones. [...] The world considered Palestinian
terrorism the legitimate nationalist uprising of a subjugated minority.
[...] The severe blow suffered by the U.S. this week at the hands
of the coalition of terrorism has created an opportunity for Israel
to try to enlist Western public opinion to its side in its struggle
against Palestinian aggression."

False Analogy

First,
an analogy was drawn between the attacks on the US and the Palestinian
resistance to the Israeli Occupation. The French ambassador to Israel,
who dared resist this analogy, saying the terror in Israel cannot
be detached from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was condemned
by a right-wing Knesset member in a typical
Israeli understatement as, "Petain [a Vichy government
official] of the first decade of the 21st century, an anti-Semitic
racist whose diplomatic credentials should be revoked, and who should
be sent back to Paris immediately."

As
with all analogies, this one has some convincing aspects: the innocent
victims, the suicidal element. But as with so many political analogies,
it is manipulative: its aim is to obscure the fact that the Palestinians'
land is occupied by Israel. The Palestinian claim is based on a
morally and internationally acknowledged right to resist occupation
and illegal settlements. Israel could have obeyed international
law and decisions in the first place, and could leave the occupied
territories, thus removing the reason for the Palestinian violence.
Instead, it uses murderous violence and terror to impose its occupation,
and complains when the Palestinians also use violence. The claims
of the terrorists in the USA, on the other hand, are left to speculation,
and it is obviously not based on any internationally acknowledged
right. The difference is that the one is mere aggression and the
other is (sometimes excessive) self-defense.

Ran HaCohen
was born in the Netherlands in 1964 and has grown up in Israel.
He has B.A. in Computer Science, M.A. in Comparative Literature
and he presently works on his PhD thesis. He lives in Tel-Aviv,
teaches in the Department of Comparative Literature in Tel-Aviv
University. He also works as literary translator (from German, English
and Dutch), and as a literary critic for the Israeli daily Yedioth
Achronoth. His work has been published widely in Israel. His
column appears occasionally at Antiwar.com.

"He Must Decide"

Having
established this false analogy, two main propaganda arguments were
formulated by the Cabinet: "First, in the strong wording of
a message transmitted to PA Chairman Yasser Arafat: He must decide
to which camp he belongs  to the basement of terrorism or to the
living room of the civilized nations"; second, "the disaster
has not prevented decision makers in Jerusalem from making a concerted
effort to give Israel the image of a country that is part of the
community of the Sons of Light, fighting against the Sons of Darkness,"
to quote Benziman again.

These
were not the original Israeli propaganda themes. They were set by
the US, and Israel just produced a localized version  an Israeli
translation if you like. Let's see how it works.

A
reliable mouthpiece of the American government, columnist Thomas
Friedman, wrote from Jerusalem(!) for the New
York Times: "A country like Syria has to decide: Does
it want a Hezbollah embassy in Damascus or an American one? If it
wants a U.S. embassy, then it cannot play host to a rogue's gallery
of terrorist groups." The theme "He Must Decide"
was born in America; it was then adopted by Israel with a slight
modification, making it refer to Arafat; and in this localized version
it is cultivated by the Israeli media, especially by the "free,"
"critical" and "pluralistic" daily Haaretz.
Its editorial
column on Thursday just hinted:

"Washington,
as a victim, and as it readies for a counter-attack, will face a
simple question that it will state clearly to countries and organizations
worldwide: Are you for us or against us? Those who want to be considered
friends of the U.S. will no longer be able to hide behind their
pretenses."

"The
Palestinian Authority, which the IDF has wanted declared a "terrorist
entity" for a very long time now, will have to abandon its
hypocritical stance and clearly show where it stands. If it continues
to be involved in terrorism."

That
very Friday, senior political columnist Yoel
Marcus also had a strikingly innovative idea, which he felt
obliged to share with his unprepared readers: "PA Chairman
Yasser Arafat will have to decide which side he is on: good or evil."

"Leaders
of local movements and organizations must now declare anew their
position. Are they part of global terrorism through their acceptance
of local terror as a legitimate method, or are they part of those
fighting terror as it is now understood and defined in light of
the destroyed American buildings? Among those who must make this
decision is Yasser Arafat, who must decide whether he is prepared
to withdraw his support for all terrorist organizations and acts
of terror."

That's
how the Sons of Light's free, critical and pluralistic media works
 how very different from primitive propaganda machines of the
Sons of Darkness, that just repeat the same clichés over
and over again.

Sons of Light, Sons of Darkness

The
demagoguery of Sons of Light against Sons of Darkness is a banal
Hollywood myth, used to justify the Sons of Light when they actually
behave as Sons of Darkness, as we are likely to see soon in Afghanistan
or elsewhere. Its Israeli localization must stress a rather delicate
point, namely, that Israel belongs to the Sons of Light. A Haaretz
editorial of September 12 talks pathetically of "all freedom-loving
countries, including Israel, which are not ready to bow their heads
before extremists who enlist God to justify their murderous activities.
[...] It is possible to point the blame at all those who are ready
to accept a solution made up of violence and murder as a path to
justice. Those will be the ones America will fight, with its partners
who share America's values."

"Freedom-loving
countries", says the editorial; and hastens to add, to avoid
mistake: "including Israel." Whose freedom does Israel
love so much? Is it the freedom of every person to marry his beloved
one, a freedom still denied to couples of mixed religions? Is it
the freedom of foreign workers, hundreds of thousands of whom are
living in Israel in conditions of near-slavery? Or is it the freedom
of the occupied Palestinians, who have been living under Israeli
military regime for 34 years, without nationality, without human,
political and social rights, and in the last decade even without
the basic freedom of movement beyond the nearest Israeli checkpoint,
never more than a couple of miles away?

And
who are those who enlist God to justify their murderous activities?
Are they just Moslem fundamentalists, or do murderous Jewish settlers
who terrorize the occupied territories do the very same thing? Who
are "all those who are ready to accept a solution made up of
violence and murder as a path to justice"? Are they the evil
Palestinians, who are using violence as a path to the just cause
of ending the occupation  or is it virtuous Israel, that has been
using a much more murderous violence as a path  not to justice,
but rather to injustice, to impose occupation and illegal settlements?

Arab Solidarity?

Meanwhile,
a controversy has occurred between PM Sharon and Foreign Minister
Peres. Sharon draws the analogy to its end, compares Arafat to bin
Laden, and has vetoed a meeting between him and Peres. Peres called
Sharon "part of the rejectionist front" for this veto.
Peres would not have dared to make such a charge, unless he was
aware of American support for such a meeting. Indeed, President
Bush seems to be considering including the Palestinians in his "coalition."
At such a moment, very much depends on so-called Arab and Moslem
solidarity.

If
such solidarity exists, Arab states such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi
Arabia should join forces and convince Bush that ending the Israeli
occupation is a vital American interest. In this case, we might
witness another solution for Samson's riddle: "Out of the strong
came forth sweetness," with strong American pressure on Israel.
If, on the other hand, Arab and Moslem solidarity proves non-existent
once more, and Israel convinces Bush that it will be able to contain
the Palestinians with no damage to American interests, we might
all face many more suicide bombers to come, with an ever-destabilizing
Middle-East.